Capital Punishment: yay or nay?

[Cryozombie]

I'm all for capital punishment, if by capital punishment we mean punishing the idiots at the Capital.

 

[Ray]

jeffery dahmer & serial killers in general represent a very small portion of murderers. i'm not one of those people who is upset about every single execution; i don't miss dahmer being on the planet at all. but i would rather see serial killers serve life in prison than see innocent people executed.

You can really differentiate between the 1-time murderer and the murderer with the "serious problem?" It gets no worse than murder.

also, i should have specified that i was referring to life imprisonment without parole. part of the reason why true life imprisonment is rare is because of the many people convicted of victimless crimes (hence the reference to the drug war) clogging up the prison system.

You just don't get it, do you? There is no guarenteed life imprisonment; and the longer someone who is truely guilty stays in prison, the greater liklihood they will be set free.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

i agree that survival of society is important, but there are other ways to insure it's survival. life imprisonment is an option, as is allowing society to defend itself.

I much prefer that second option, and it badly needs to come to the forefront.

Well, now with the economy about to collapse and more people thus about to have to deal face to face with more resulting criminals, that actually may finally happen.

insuring the survival of society also mean insuring that no innocent person is wrongly executed.


jf

Yep.

 

[jarrod]

You can really differentiate between the 1-time murderer and the murderer with the "serious problem?" It gets no worse than murder.
You just don't get it, do you? There is no guarenteed life imprisonment; and the longer someone who is truely guilty stays in prison, the greater liklihood they will be set free.

no, i guess i'm just too stupid to understand you. try using smaller words.

we've done a pretty good job of keeping charles manson behind bars, & he has the possibility of parole. plus he didn't actually kill anyone himself. so explain to me why we can't manage to keep someone in prison for life without the possibility of parole. remember to use small words, & type slowly for me if you can.

jf

 

[MA-Caver]

Lets keep this heated topic down to a simmer instead of a boil. Relax folks... it's just a conversation and people have the right to disagree or misunderstand.

 

[jarrod]

he started it

jf

 

[MA-Caver]

he started it

jf

Hey, I have no power except to act as a older brother and say watch out you're drawing attention to yourself. Throwing blame is like dropping a dixie cup of gasoline on the campfire.

 

[MJS]

You can really differentiate between the 1-time murderer and the murderer with the "serious problem?" It gets no worse than murder.
You just don't get it, do you? There is no guarenteed life imprisonment; and the longer someone who is truely guilty stays in prison, the greater liklihood they will be set free.

Please share with us your solutions. I asked in a previous post, but it went unanswered. Usually if people make claims such as this, they'll be able to back up what they're saying with some examples.

 

[Ray]

Please share with us your solutions. I asked in a previous post, but it went unanswered. Usually if people make claims such as this, they'll be able to back up what they're saying with some examples.

You would like me to give you examples of convicted murderers who were executed who were thus prevented from murdering again?

You would like me to provide examples of people who were convicted, let go, and committed crimes again? Is it just limited to those who committed murder, were convicted, set free and killed again? Or can I bring up the Willie Horton's of the world?

What is the perimeter of the parameters of the illustrative occurances?

 

[jarrod]

Hey, I have no power except to act as a older brother and say watch out you're drawing attention to yourself. Throwing blame is like dropping a dixie cup of gasoline on the campfire.

i was kidding, hence the goofy face after the comment. attempting to diffuse tensions with humor, all that stuff.

now ray, you stay on your side of the thread or else ma-caver will turn this thread around!

jf

 

[Ray]

now ray, you stay on your side of the thread or else ma-caver will turn this thread around!

I have immense respect for the opinions of MA-Caver. If he should declare himself "right," then I would have to defer to his judgment.

 

[MJS]

You would like me to give you examples of convicted murderers who were executed who were thus prevented from murdering again?

You would like me to provide examples of people who were convicted, let go, and committed crimes again? Is it just limited to those who committed murder, were convicted, set free and killed again? Or can I bring up the Willie Horton's of the world?

What is the perimeter of the parameters of the illustrative occurances?

Maybe I'm not clear on your stance on the death penalty. Perhaps what the real issue is, is the fact that the legal system seems to be seriously flawed. I mean, you have 2 violent, career criminals, who are out on parole, only to kill someone again, such as in the Cheshire, Ct. home invasion, where the wife and 2 daughters were killed, the husband badly beaten, but survived, and the house burned to the ground.

Why were they on parole? And yes, for the record, a mistake was made. So, either keep the bad apples locked for life or if need be, limit all these appeals, esp. when the fingers are all pointing at them, and get on with the execution.

"There is no guarenteed life imprisonment; and the longer someone who is truely guilty stays in prison, the greater liklihood they will be set free."

Wasn't John Gotti sent to prison for life? Actually yes he was and he died there as well. In your opinion, do you think he would have been set free, had he not passed in prison?

 

[jarrod]

I have immense respect for the opinions of MA-Caver. If he should declare himself "right," then I would have to defer to his judgment.

okay.

 

[MA-Caver]

I have immense respect for the opinions of MA-Caver. If he should declare himself "right," then I would have to defer to his judgment.

okay.

awww g'wan fellas stop it.

Back to the discussion eh?

 

[Ray]

Maybe I'm not clear on your stance on the death penalty.

I support the death penalty in cases of capital crime: e.g treason and murder.

In your opinion, do you think he would have been set free, had he not passed in prison?

The longer a convicted murderer lives in prision, the greater liklihood that someday he/she will be set free.

 

[MJS]

I support the death penalty in cases of capital crime: e.g treason and murder.

Thank you for the clarification.

The longer a convicted murderer lives in prision, the greater liklihood that someday he/she will be set free.

I don't know if I can fully agree with that. I mean, do you think that a serial killer would get released, possibly in an effort to make room for the never ending flow of people who can't seem to stay away from criminal activity? IMO, I'd think they'd release someone in prison on a lesser crime vs. someone who killed a large number of people.

 

[MA-Caver]

The longer a convicted murderer lives in prision, the greater liklihood that someday he/she will be set free.

I don't know if I can fully agree with that. I mean, do you think that a serial killer would get released, possibly in an effort to make room for the never ending flow of people who can't seem to stay away from criminal activity? IMO, I'd think they'd release someone in prison on a lesser crime vs. someone who killed a large number of people.

Agreed. There are people today who are continually denied parole everytime they go up for review. Manson will never get parole though he's eligible, same goes for the girls who followed his directions. These are just a couple of examples of people who will literally die in prison.
A one time murderer may or may not be released... depending upon his crime. A jealous husband probably, a child killer... probably not.
The law is just as aware of people outside the system who would like nothing more than to take their own brand of revenge/justice so some of these animals will stay behind bars.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

What say you?

Talking about Bob Barr we got sidetracked on the death penalty.

I myself favor the liberal and gratuitous use of the death penalty. I think we need to make more crimes capital crimes. And limit appeals to 12 months, maximum.

What do you think?

Overall, I would say nay, although it's not without some hesitancy. There are certainly some crimes whose perpetrators, I think, deserve to die. However, I don't believe our justice system should base itself on our feelings of vengeance or outrage. Additionally, I think that, as good as our justice system is, it's still too imperfect for capital punishment to be an option in the prosecuter's arsenal.

As a side note, I agree that the appeals process is too extended, but a limit of 12 months remains too short a time. Cases can be delayed easily, especially for state prosecutors, and a limit of only 12 months would compromise the rights of the accused...which, even when considering the most barbaric crimes, still must be preserved.

 

[MA-Caver]

Overall, I would say nay, although it's not without some hesitancy. There are certainly some crimes whose perpetrators, I think, deserve to die. However, I don't believe our justice system should base itself on our feelings of vengeance or outrage. Additionally, I think that, as good as our justice system is, it's still too imperfect for capital punishment to be an option in the prosecutor's arsenal.

I don't think justice is a sense of outrage or vengeance but it is meeting the punishment equal to the crime in question. As you say there are those who "deserve to die". I liken them to a rabid dog or a fighting dog. Far too violent/dangerous to be let about loose or even in behind a cage (penal system). There are some who absolutely cannot be rehabilitated. Many who refuse to and many who just don't quite get it. For those who cannot and whose crimes against people were so savage and wanton in their scale of violence and would carry that violence behind bars and threaten the lives of the guards and other not so violent inmates... what else can you do with them? IMO take them out of the equation and out of the gene pool... permanently. For those who refuse and are still violent and stand a high probability of committing such violence if allowed to do so (released from the confines of prison walls) we can give them a three strike deal but that may mean three more innocent people dead that didn't have to die. And for those who just don't quite get it... well life behind bars is suitable alternative, life without parole.
For me, the key to justice is to protect the innocent from future harm... by any means necessary. If the process of rehabilitation works and sticks... another key element... sticks to the felon then okay. But if it doesn't. What do you do with a dog that keeps on biting?

As a side note, I agree that the appeals process is too extended, but a limit of 12 months remains too short a time. Cases can be delayed easily, especially for state prosecutors, and a limit of only 12 months would compromise the rights of the accused...which, even when considering the most barbaric crimes, still must be preserved.

The over burden of the number of cases vs the number of prosecutors & investigators is staggering. Maybe 12 months is too short a time... if that particular case is being actively pursued. But every day a new case comes up and demands attention, sometimes immediate. What to do with the one awaiting the appeals process? Particularly the animal or rabid dog type killer(s). Waste of time and effort in their cases I think.
Maybe it's an emotional knee jerk response on my part but if a guy is caught and even confesses to a horrendous child murder... should they have to sit for years behind bars? The loss of that child far outweighs the loss of the animal that killed them.
I'm not going to go the line of the "Green Mile - John Coffey" circumstances. Today there are highly trained CSI and forensic people who'd be able to ascertain the man's guilt or innocence. No, it's not 100% but it is pretty darn close thanks to the advent of DNA investigation and the like. Just as DNA has shown many to be guilty it is being used to find many older crimes to be of mistaken identity and the accused/convicted to be innocent.
It's not perfect and I wonder sometimes if it ever will be... but for the time being until more people step up to help speed up the process of analyzing evidence and making sure that the guilty are just that and the innocent just so... it's all we have. Meanwhile the prison system continues to swell at the seams.

 

[jarrod]

I don't think justice is a sense of outrage or vengeance but it is meeting the punishment equal to the crime in question.

i agree with you here in terms of the idea of justice, however 'justice' as practiced by the judicial system is all too often based on outrage & revenge. until we find a way to deprive lawyers, judges, & juries of their basic emotions during a trial, they are going to at least partly decide the outcome based on those emotions. that's fine, there's no such thing as a perfect system, i just am not comfortable trusting human lives to that system.

now musashi wrote about the idea of the life-giving sword. if you are saving lives by taking one, you're not really killing in the grand scheme of things. unfortunately, capital punishment is sort of like social self-defense after the fact. killing the perp doesn't prevent the death, & it doesn't do any more to prevent the killing of other productive members of society than life imprisonment does. plus it runs the risk of allowing unequal or even wrongful application.

jf